"I think she really had the right to read the letter, but she was blocked or at least temporarily blocked from reading," Attorney General Jeff Sessions said of Sen. Elizabeth Warren, pictured holding a transcript of her speech. | J. Scott Applewhite/AP Photo

Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Tuesday that his colleagues were wrong to punish Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) for seeking to read a historical letter sharply criticizing him during Senate floor debate on his confirmation in February.

"She certainly had the right to criticize my nomination. I think she really had the right to read the letter that she was blocked or at least temporarily blocked from reading," Sessions said during a question-and-answer session following a speech at Georgetown University's law school.

The Republican-controlled Senate voted along party lines to rebuke the outspoken liberal Democrat and silence her for the remainder of the day after she repeatedly attempted to read a 1986 letter from Coretta Scott King accusing Sessions of "reprehensible" conduct during an election fraud prosecution of Alabama civil rights leaders.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell argued that because Sessions was a senator and a nominee, the criticism ran afoul of a rarely enforced rule barring personal criticism of another senator. His terse explanation of why Warren was being punished quickly went viral on the internet and became a rallying cry for liberal activists, who slapped the statement on t-shirts, bumper stickers and more.

"She was warned. She was given an explanation. Nevertheless, she persisted," McConnell declared.

In his comments Tuesday, Sessions suggested the decision to strike Warren's words from the record and deny her the right to speak on the floor for the rest of that night amounted to an abandonment of the Senate's tradition of robust debate.

Sign up here for POLITICO Huddle

A daily play-by-play of congressional news in your inbox.

Email

By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.

"In general, the Senate is one of the most open debating forums in the history of the world," the attorney general said in comments that seemed more aligned with the reaction of Democratic senators than of most Republicans. "People feel that, and we should be very cautious before we constrict any member of the Senate from speaking on issues and in a way they choose."

A spokesman for McConnell did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

A federal appeals court has reinstated parts of a controversial new Texas law aimed at blocking local sanctuary-city policies across the Lone Star state.

A three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issueda stay that allows much of the Texas law, known as SB 4, to take effect.

A federal district court judge in Del Rio, Texas,blocked the bulk of the policy in late August.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions hailed the appeals court ruling Monday. While the federal government is not a party to the case, Justice Department lawyers weighed in, urging the judges to let Texas’s law take effect

“The Department of Justice is gratified by the decision of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals today,” Sessions said in a statement. “Texas is one step closer to ending the dangerous sanctuary policies that prevent federal law enforcement from keeping criminal aliens off the streets and keeping Texans safe.”

One provision in the new law requires local governments to comply with federal detainer requests, which ask local jails to hold suspected undocumented immigrants for up to 48 hours.

The most reliable politics newsletter.

Sign up for POLITICO Playbook and get the latest news, every morning — in your inbox.

Email

By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxtonpraised the decision to allow parts of the law to take effect, and argued that it would ultimately be found constitutional.

“We are pleased today’s 5th Circuit ruling will allow Texas to strengthen public safety by implementing the key components of Senate Bill 4,” Paxton said. “Enforcing immigration law helps prevent dangerous criminals from being released into Texas communities. I am confident Senate Bill 4 will be found constitutional and ultimately upheld.”

Luis Vera, an attorney for the League of United Latin American Citizens who is pressing one of the suits challenging the law, disputed the idea that the 5th Circuit’s order would make detainer requests mandatory.

“It’s always been voluntary, so I guess it’s still voluntary,” he told POLITICO.

Vera cited part of the appeals court’s order that suggests local governments will not be required to follow detainer requests, and only need to “cooperate according to existing ICE detainer practice and law.”

The 5th Circuit panel did uphold the lower court’s injunction against a part of the law that some read as barring local officials from even advocating for so-called sanctuary policies. U.S. District Court Judge Orlando Garcia said that portion of the law appeared to run afoul of the First Amendment.

The 5th Circuit is considered the nation’s most conservative appeals court, but the stay order issued Monday won the votes of two Democratic appointees. The panel that issued the directive consisted of Judge James Dennis, a Clinton appointee; Judge Leslie Southwick, a George W. Bush appointee; and Judge Stephen Higginson, an Obama appointee.

The ruling Monday was a temporary one pending the outcome of the appeal, which is scheduled to be heard Nov. 6.

Appeals court arguments on LGBT rights Tuesday will take place without video coverage after a judge objected to C-SPAN's request to televise the rare session, a court official said.

The full 13-judge bench of the New York-based 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals is set to hear an hour of oral arguments Tuesday afternoon on a case raising the issue of whether existing federal law prohibits discrimination against gays and lesbians.

The case, involving a deceased New York skydiving instructor who claimed he was fired from a skydiving company because he was gay, has drawn unusual attention because different parts of the federal government are taking conflicting positions.

Interest in the 2nd Circuit case has also been piqued by the rarity with which the court grants en banc review. The last such argument was in 2015 in a case about computer searches. The 2nd Circuit is considered the stingiest court when it comes to having the full bench rehear a case already decided by a three-judge panel.

2nd Circuit Clerk Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe confirmed that a member of the court requested that the session Tuesday not be recorded on video

"The media policy says that if a member of the panel makes the request" video recording will not be permitted, O'Hagan Wolfe told POLITICO Monday. "A request was made in this case."

O'Hagan Wolfe declined to elaborate on who vetoed the video or why. "The policy speaks for itself," she said.

The clerk added that audio of the argument will be made public after the session. However, figuring out which of the 13 judges is questioning a lawyer or engaging with a colleague can be challenging from audio alone.

A C-SPAN executive said the network regrets that its cameras won't be allowed in.

"While we are disappointed in this outcome, the 2nd Circuit has agreed to cameras in the past and we look forward to covering future cases," said C-SPAN Vice President of Programming Terry Murphy.

The case set to heard Tuesday pits the family of Donald Zarda against the Long Island skydiving firm he was fired from in 2010, Altitude Express. Zarda contended he was fired because he was gay, while the firm asserted because of complaints from a woman he took on a tandem dive. (He was killed in an unrelated base-jumping accident in 2014.)

In June, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission weighed in for Zarda's estate, arguing that existing federal law against sex discrimination offers protection against being fired for being gay. In July, the Trump administration weighed in via the Justice Department, contending that Congress has had dozens of chances to make such protection explicit and has never done so.

For decades, courts have ruled that firing or discriminating against employees because they're gay or lesbian does not violate federal law.

However, the Supreme Court has never ruled on the issue and in recent years, some judges have shown a willingness to reconsider that stance.

In April, the full bench of the Chicago-based U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals voted, 8-3, to overrule that court's prior precedents and hold that there are protections for LGBT status in federal law. Five of the judges who joined in the groundbreaking majority opinion were Republican appointees.

The 2nd Circuit policy in place since 1996 generally permits live video and audio coverage of arguments, except in criminal cases. The New York-based court also allowed video recording on occasion in the early 1990s.

The most reliable politics newsletter.

Sign up for POLITICO Playbook and get the latest news, every morning — in your inbox.

Email

By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.

The San Francisco-based 9th Circuit has also allowed video coverage by the media since 1996. In 2015, it began streaming its own live video of all in-person oral arguments. A court spokesman said the archived videos have been viewed more than 1.3 million times.

Advocates for greater transparency in the courts lamented the 2nd Circuit's decision.

"I'm disappointed the Second Circuit will not be allowing video coverage for Zarda despite permitting cameras in the past and in spite of the heightened public interest in the case," said Gabe Roth of Fix the Court.

"It's an odd decision given that appeals courts across the country are increasing broadcast access, with the Third Circuit allowing video, the Eleventh Circuit posting same-day audio and the Fourth and D.C. Circuits sanctioning live audio all in the last few months. As we're days away from the start of a new Supreme Court term comprising cases with broad public interest, for which media organizations are poised to request live or same-day audio, I'm hoping the Second Circuit's pullback is not a sign of a new trend," he added.

Former Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio is entitled to have the guilty verdict and all rulings in his criminal contempt of court case formally nullified by the court as a result of the pardon President Donald Trump issued last month, the Justice Department said in a court filing Thursday.

Responding to a request from U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton, federal prosecutors acknowledged that there is no legal precedent that squarely answers the question of what should happen when someone receives a pardon after a verdict is reached (in this case by a judge) but before the conviction is officially entered.

In July, Bolton found Arpaio guilty of contempt for defying a court order requiring his deputies to stop racial profiling of Latinos. Trump pardoned the former sheriff in August, citing his long history of public service.

Citing the pardon, Arpaio's attorneys are asking that the convictions and all orders and opinions entered in the case be vacated—in essence, canceled.

"There is no case law directly addressing whether vacatur is appropriate under the circumstances at issue here—when a presidential pardon moots a criminal prosecution after a finding of guilt but before a judgment of conviction is entered," prosecutors wrote in their five-page submission.

They noted that the D.C. Circuit, acting in a case of a lobbyist pardoned by President Bill Clinton, ruled that the conviction should be vacated. Prosecutors also pointed to a case the 9th Circuit ordered vacated and dismissed after the defendant committed suicide following his conviction.

The most reliable politics newsletter.

Sign up for POLITICO Playbook and get the latest news, every morning — in your inbox.

Email

By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.

The government suggested that it would be unfair to leave the guilty verdict in place, while the pardon effectively denies Arpaio the right to appeal it.

"Federal appellate decisions from the D.C. Circuit and the Ninth Circuit support vacatur of the Court’s verdict and dismissal of the case because the presidential pardon has mooted the case prior to completion of direct appellate review," prosecutors said.

Several outside groups are urging Bolton to leave the guilty finding in place. Some advocates have also argued that Bolton, a Clinton appointee, should reject the pardon entirely as an unconstitutional attempt to interfere with the judicial branch.

An attorney working with the liberal group Protect Democracy said the Justice Department's response shows why Bolton should allow an outside lawyer to attack the legality of the pardon at a hearing the judge scheduled for Oct. 4

"As we said in our brief to the court, ours is an adversarial system. Since DOJ has now refused to provide the court with any opposition to Mr. Arpaio's motion, the law provides for the Court to appoint a private attorney to help it resolve the important issues at stake," said Jean-Jacques Cabou of law firm Perkins Coie.

The Justice Department did say that Arpaio is not entitled to have the records of his trial "expunged," which would essentially render them off-limits to the public.

"Vacatur does not alter the historical record nor entitle a defendant to expunge, alter, or seal the court record," prosecutors wrote. "No final judgment of conviction has been entered, and while vacatur is appropriate given the presidential pardon, the Court is not required to alter or expunge the underlying record."

This story tagged under:

Anti-Trump protesters march near the National Mall following the inauguration of President Donald Trump on Jan. 20 in Washington, D.C. The website in question was used to organize protests against President Donald Trump's inauguration last January. | Spencer Platt/Getty Images

A judge is pressing forward with plans to allow enforcement of a search warrant against a website used to organize protests against President Donald Trump's inauguration last January.

However, D.C. Superior Court Chief Judge Robert Morin is insisting that prosecutors won't be able to see messages and other information that demonstrators exchanged on the DisruptJ20 site until he determines that every such communication is related to the ongoing investigation and prosecution of alleged rioting in downtown Washington on the same day Trump was sworn in.

"You have the right to have the warrant executed," Morin told Assistant U.S. Attorney John Borchert during a hearing Wednesday afternoon on the dispute between the government and DreamHost — the internet firm that hosted the site.

Morin said that once the firm turns over the information, investigators will be able to take an initial look at the files but won't be allowed to dig into their substance until he approves.

"Until the court has ruled ... the court is not allowing the government to inspect either [email senders'] identity or their communications," the judge said.

Just how that process will work seemed murky at Wednesday's hearing, which took nearly an hour.

Borchert indicated that prosecutors will likely propose using a series of search terms to look for emails referring to violence, but the judge said he wanted a specific explanation from the prosecution for each email or document they want access to. Just how they'd come up with that detail without seeing the messages in question was unclear.

The most reliable politics newsletter.

Sign up for POLITICO Playbook and get the latest news, every morning — in your inbox.

Email

By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.

In addition, DreamHost attorney Raymond Aghaian proposed giving the government just the metadata from the website's files. Later, he said the government could get the contents of messages with the senders and recipients blacked out until the court approves disclosure of the individual messages.

A lawyer representing visitors to the website, Paul Alan Levy of Public Citizen, urged Morin to order that email senders be notified before their messages are given to the government. However, the judge said that isn't normally done in cases involving search warrants.

Morin seemed eager Wednesday to move on with the process. He told the prosecution to prepare another order outlining a search process that doesn't permit the government to "dive into" the records without further permission.

"We'll find a way to do that," Borchert said.

"I hope you do," the judge responded.

Nearly 200 people are facing criminal riot charges in connection with violence and property damage that occurred as thousands of people marched to protest Trump assuming the presidency.

This story tagged under:

A ruling in the defendant's favor could complicate the Trump administration's effort to step up prosecutions for those who aid illegal immigrants. | Charles Reed/U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement via AP

A federal law that makes it a crime to encourage or induce foreigners to enter or stay in the U.S. illegally may run afoul of the First Amendment, a federal appeals court suggested in an unusual order Monday.

A 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel asked federal public defenders and immigrant rights groups to submit amicus briefs arguing that a San Jose, California, woman was improperly convicted because the law is vague or overbroad.

Immigration consultant Evelyn Sineneng-Smith was convicted at a jury trial in 2013 of inducing foreigners from the Philippines to stay in the U.S. unlawfully by charging them to file labor and immigration petitions that had no chance of winning the immigrants legal status.

At oral arguments in April on Sineneng-Smith's appeal, all three 9th Circuit judges expressed concerns about the government's position that someone could be convicted under the statute, which makes it illegal to encourage or induce "an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law."

"What is the limit of this statute?" Judge Marsha Berzon asked. "If I have a neighbor and he's illegal, and he comes to me and says, 'Should I stay or should I leave? What should I do?' and I say, 'Stay, because they're probably not going to find you,' is that a crime? ... Encourage is a pretty loose word; what does it mean?"

Morning Media

Your guide to the media circus — weekday mornings, in your inbox.

Email

By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.

A 9th Circuit ruling in the defendant's favor could complicate the Trump administration's effort to step up prosecutions for those who aid illegal immigrants, although it's possible other statutes could be used to file such cases.

However, at the oral argument session, Judge Stephen Reinhardt said a literal reading of the criminal law in Sineneng-Smith's case could put lawyers in jeopardy for giving legal advice.

"What if a lawyer says to a client. ... This is before the era of Trump, as our attorney general puts it. ... If before that era a client goes to a lawyer and says, 'I've overstayed. I've been here 20 years. What should I do?' And the lawyer says, 'Well, no sane country is going to try to deport 11 million people so ... if i were you, I would do nothing. I would go back and continue to lead my life.' Is that lawyer guilty of a crime?" Reinhardt asked.

Judge Wallace Tashima also chimed in, raising concerns about the lack of a clear intent requirement.

Prosecutor Susan Gray said how the intent requirement was parsed was of little significance because of overwhelming evidence that Sineneng-Smith was ripping people off. A judge sentenced Sineneng-Smith to 18 months in prison and six months of home confinement, but she has remained free on bond while the appeal went forward.

"The fraud here wasn't a fraud on the government; it was a fraud on the clients," Gray said. "She did it for one reason only. She did it for greed."

Defense attorney Daniel Cook said Sineneng-Smith knew the clients could not get all the way through the process of legalization due to the changes in the law. However, he insisted that the labor applications were legitimate steps that could help the clients if the law changed. He said the information in the applications was accurate and disclosed that the applicants had been in the country illegally for years.

"Ms. Sineneng-Smith surfaced these people who were hidden," Cook said.

Berzon said she was troubled by the use of the encouraging-or-inducing-illegal-immigration law if the government's real complaint was fraud. She compared the situation to prosecutors' broad claims several years ago of "honest services fraud" — a theory reined in by the Supreme Court.

"It sounds like what this person did was exploitative and so on. ... There are statutes to deal with it," Berzon said.

The judges seemed frustrated with the arguments but took no action on the case until they issued the order Monday seeking amicus briefs within 30 days. The appeals court did not indicate whether it plans to hold new arguments in the case.

Reinhardt is a Jimmy Carter appointee. Berzon and Tashima are appointees of Bill Clinton.

Spokespeople for the Justice Department and for the U.S. Attorney's Office in San Francisco did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Cook, Sineneng-Smith's lawyer, did not respond to phone and email messages seeking comment.

The Justice Department is appealing a judge's injunction limiting President Donald Trump's executive order that sought to deny federal funding to local governments with so-called sanctuary policies protecting undocumented immigrants.

Orrick issued the preliminary injunction at the request of the City of San Francisco and of Santa Clara County, each of which filed suit over Trump's directive.

Localities with sanctuary policies claim they protect communities by encouraging crime victims and witnesses to cooperate with local law enforcement. Attorney General Jeff Sessions and other Trump administration officials say the approach puts American citizens at risk by resulting in the release of undocumented immigrants who could be detained and deported.

Prior to Monday, Justice Department attorneys had been cagey about whether an appeal would be filed, despite the fact that Trump reacted to Orrick's ruling with a tweet saying: "See you in the Supreme Court!"

Playbook Power Briefing

Sign up for our must-read newsletter on what's driving the afternoon in Washington.

Email

By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.

A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment on the appeal, but Santa Clara County's top lawyer said he looks forward to defending Orrick's order.

"We are fully prepared to defend the District Court's well-reasoned decision blocking President Trump’s unconstitutional effort to de-fund state and local governments around the country it deems 'sanctuaries,'" County Counsel James Williams said. "The legal principles at issue are not new — they date to this Nation’s founding, and are core to our democracy.”

Justice Department attorneys argued that the disputed portion of Trump's Jan. 25 directive wasn't intended to do anything more than require grant recipients to comply with a provision in federal law prohibiting local policies that obstruct communication with immigration officials.

However, Orrick found that reading of Trump's order "not legally plausible."

"If there was doubt about the scope of the Order, the President and Attorney General have erased it with their public comments," Orrick wrote. "The Constitution vests the spending power in Congress, not the President, so the Order cannot constitutionally place new conditions on federal funds."

The Justice Department asked Orrick to reconsider his ruling in light of a formal directive from Sessions. The judge turned down that request in July.

That same month, DOJ officials sought to impose stricter conditions on future grants, insisting that local governments give immigration officials access to jails and give those officers a heads-up about releases of suspected illegal immigrants.

On Friday, a federal judge in Chicago blocked that iteration of the Trump administration's anti-sanctuary city policy, saying it appeared the Justice Department lacked the authority to add those conditions.

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story misstated the last name of the judge who issued the rulings the Justice Department appealed Monday.

A half dozen DACA recipients are suing President Donald Trump over his decision to end the program giving quasi-legal status and work permits to undocumented immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children.

Several legal luminaries are backing the lawsuit filed Monday morning in federal court in San Francisco, including Harvard Law professor Larry Tribe and University of California at Berkeley law school dean Erwin Chemerinsky.

One of the attorneys for the plaintiffs, Luis Cortes Romero from Kent, Washington, is less well known but intimately familiar with the issue: He is a so-called Dreamer. And one of the plaintiffs, DACA recipient Dulce Garcia, is also an attorney practicing in Chula Vista, Calif.

The Trump administration is facing at least five suits challenging the decision to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program set up by President Barack Obama in 2012.

A total of fifteen states filed suit earlier this month in U.S. District Court in Brooklyn, arguing that the move to end the program is unconstitutional and violates federal law. Last week, four other states filed a similar case in San Francisco. The University of California also filed its own suit over Trump's attempt to phase out the program.

Lawyers handling an existing suit in New York on behalf of a DACA recipient have also signaled plans to update that suit to address Trump's new action, but the case filed Monday in San Francisco appears to be the first one actually filed on behalf of so-called Dreamers.

Get the latest on employment and immigration, every weekday morning — in your inbox.

Email

By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.

“The decision to end DACA is not only inexplicable and immoral, it is unconstitutional,” said Ted Boutrous, a Gibson Dunn attorney known for work on a key court challenge to California's ban on gay marriage. “These young people were able to attend college, open businesses, and give back to their communities because they trusted the government to honor its promises and live up to its word. In suddenly and arbitrarily breaking those promises, the government is in direct violation of the Due Process Clause and federal law.”

Asked about the new lawsuit, Justice Department spokesman Devin O'Malley said the administration acted to bring legal clarity to a program that lacked authority from Congress.

“It was the previous administration’s arbitrary circumvention of Congress that got us to this point. The Department of Justice looks forward to defending this administration’s position and restoring respect for the rule of law," O'Malley said.

While Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that the program is ending due to its legal flaws, Trump has expressed sympathy for their plight and has been negotiating a possible legislative deal to allow so-called Dreamers to get permanent legal status in the U.S.

The legal team representing the six DACA recipients in the new case also includes University of California law professor Leah Litman and lawyers from the public interest law firm Public Counsel.

Later in the day Monday, Trump's attempt to shut down DACA was hit with another suit. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, better known as the NAACP, filed its own legal action in Washington, D.C. "Nearly all of the DACA registrants—more than 95%—are people of color," the complaint notes.

The Justice Department's No. 2 official indicated Thursday that the federal government's policy on prosecuting corporate crime is under review and he suggested that changes to the department's stance on the issue are coming.

"It’s under review and I anticipate that there may be some change to the policy on corporate prosecutions," Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said Thursday during a question-and-answer session following a speech at the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington. "I don’t have any announcement about that today, but I do anticipate that we may in the near future make an announcement about what changes we’re going to make to corporate fraud principles."

The department's current policy, announced by Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates in September 2015, aimed to increase prosecutions of individuals responsible for criminal acts committed during work for corporations. The so-called Yates memo was seen in part as a reaction to criticism of the anemic number of prosecutions of individuals on Wall Street or at big banks for crimes related to the economic meltdown in 2008.

Rosenstein did not indicate what portions of the Yates memo are likely to be overhauled or halted. He also said that he favors prosecutions of individuals in appropriate cases.

"Corporations, of course, don’t go to prison. They do pay a fine," Rosenstein said. "The issue is can you effectively deter corporate crime by prosecuting corporations or do you in some circumstances need to prosecute individuals. I think you do."

The deputy AG described the review as commonplace.

The most reliable politics newsletter.

Sign up for POLITICO Playbook and get the latest news, every morning — in your inbox.

Email

By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.

"That’s really pretty routine. Every administration I think looks at these issues and determines whether or not the internal guidelines that were written in the last administration are effectively addressing what we think is the crime problem of the present," he said.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions suggested in an April speech that the Justice Department might re-examine the balance between individual and corporate responsibility for misconduct. However, he stopped short of announcing a formal review.

"A company cannot be a guarantor that any of its perhaps thousands of employees never do something wrong," Sessions said at a Washington conference on enforcement of laws against bribery overseas. "We do not need to have good companies trying to run a good ship be subjected often to millions of dollars of lawsuits or criminal penalties beyond a rational basis because one person went awry or one division chief went awry. "

Some observers noted that Sessions' actual comments to the meeting sounded more sympathetic to companies than were his prepared remarks.

"The Department of Justice will continue to emphasize the importance of holding individuals accountable for corporate misconduct," he told the conference. "That's not always possible, but I do believe as a long-time prosecutor who's been in court and dealt with these issues, that really something is not quite fair if honest corporate shareholders end up having to pay the price for dishonest corporate leadership."

A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment on the state of the review or when an announcement could be expected.

The questions submitted to the Rosenstein Thursday, following his "Constitution Day" speech on the rule of law, were taken in writing and screened by Heritage.

This story tagged under:

Court filings made public this week show that in July Chief Judge Beryl Howell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia rejected Google's challenge to a search warrant seeking company data stored abroad. | Getty

Google came up on the losing end of a previously-undisclosed third showdown with the federal government over demands for data stored overseas, a federal court in Washington has revealed.

The disclosure of yet another court fight over the issue comes as the U.S. Supreme Court is preparing to decide as soon as next month whether to weigh in on the question of whether U.S. law permits authorities to use U.S. courts to obtain electronic records kept outside of the country.

Court filings made public this week show that in July Chief Judge Beryl Howell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia rejected Google's challenge to a search warrant seeking company data stored abroad.

Howell agreed last week to hold the company in contempt for defying her order and to fine the firm $10,000 a day. However, the arrangement is largely symbolic, since a contempt order is needed to appeal such a ruling and she suspended the fine pending such an appeal. In fact, the firm and prosecutors jointly proposed the arrangement.

The case awaiting possible review from the Supreme Court involves tech giant Microsoft and its victory last year at the New York-based 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in a case involving the Justice Department's demands for email records stored in Ireland. A three-judge panel of that court ruled unanimously that the Stored Communications Act does not apply outside the U.S.

Prosecutors contend that allowing U.S. companies to escape requests for foreign data would eviscerate law enforcement efforts, particularly because firms and individuals would have an incentive to park information in countries that don't comply with U.S. legal process. Tech firms see a different danger: allowing the U.S. to reach into countries around the world and demand data could embolden other nations to try the same thing here, gutting privacy protections in U.S. law and the Constitution.

Prosecutors asked the full bench of the 2nd Circuit to revisit those questions in the Microsoft case, but that court deadlocked, 4-4, on rehearing the appeal. The 2nd Circuit decision led the Justice Department to ask the Supreme Court to step in. The justices are scheduled to take up that request early next month, just after they return from their summer break.

The 2nd Circuit ruling, which is binding only in New York, Connecticut and Vermont,does not seem to have impressed other judges. Federal judges in Philadelphia and San Francisco were already known to have ruled against Google on the foreign-data issue. Now, a D.C.-based judge has joined those parting company with the 2nd Circuit decision.

While it seems likely that the justices will decide to take up the issue this term, they could decide to put it off until appeals courts other than the 2nd Circuit have a chance to weigh in. Howell's order issued last week tees up an appeal to the D.C. Circuit. In addition, Google is seeking to appeal the San Francisco case to the 9th Circuit.

Playbook Power Briefing

Sign up for our must-read newsletter on what's driving the afternoon in Washington.

Email

By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.

However, prosecutors and Google are locked in a battle in that case over the question of whether the firm should be fined for contempt while it pursues an appeal. Google lawyers complained in a motion filed Wednesday that prosecutors are insisting that the firm be fined while the appeal goes forward, despite the fact that prosecutors in Washington stipulated to suspending such a fine pending appeal in the case.

"There is no legitimate basis for the government’s change of position," Google lawyer John Tyler wrote, calling prosecutors' stance "inexplicable."

"There is no sound basis for the government to break with its past practice in this matter, where Google seeks in good faith to exercise its right to appeal to obtain clarifying guidance from the Ninth Circuit," he added.

A Google spokesman declined to comment Thursday. A spokesman for federal prosecutors in San Francisco did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

UPDATE: An earlier version of this post omitted Vermont from the list of states in the 2nd Circuit.

On the eve of a pivotal court hearing, prosecutors on Wednesday moved to defuse a dispute with Facebook over the government’s efforts to use search warrants to gather information about the social media giant’s users without their knowledge.

The precise contours of the fight are unclear, but it stems from Facebook’s opposition to court orders barring the company from informing users about the demands for their data.

Hours before the company’s appeal was to be heard Thursday morning by the D.C. Court of Appeals, the Justice Department backed away from its insistence on a gag order preventing the company from telling the affected customers or the public about the details of the demands.

Prosecutors concluded that “the investigation at issue in this case has progressed during the pendency of this litigation to the point where the NDOs are no longer needed,” government lawyers and Facebook attorneys said ina joint court filing Wednesday, referring to nondisclosure orders.

The court formally dismissed the appeal in an order Wednesday afternoon.

The substance of the search warrants issued to Facebook remains secret, but the timing of court action and other clues in the legal filings suggest that the probe relates to violence surrounding protests against President Donald Trump’s inauguration in January.

A parallel legal battle has been playing out in recent months involving a web hosting company that provided services to one group organizing anti-Trump protests, disruptj20. The internet firm, DreamHost, fought a broad search warrant that sought not only the website’s content and details on its organizers, but also internet addresses for everyone who visited over a period of months.

The most reliable politics newsletter.

Sign up for POLITICO Playbook and get the latest news, every morning — in your inbox.

Email

By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.

A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington declined to comment on the development.

Facebook issued a statement Thursday declaring it had successfully stood up for its users rights.

"We’re pleased that our fight for people’s rights was successful and that we can now notify the three people whose broad account information was requested by the government. We are grateful to the companies and civil society organizations that have supported us in arguing for people’s ability to learn about and challenge overly broad search warrants," the social media firm said.

The cancellation of the court arguments was first reported by BuzzFeed.

A sharply divided Supreme Court has blocked a lower court ruling that congressional district maps Texas adopted in 2013 violate the Constitution and are the product of intentional racial discrimination.

The high court announced Tuesday night that the justices voted 5-4, along partisan lines, to block a three-judge panel’s ruling that Texas needed to redraw the maps or face having them redrawn by the court.

The stay will remain in place until the Supreme Court receives and acts on an appeal expected to be filed by the state of Texas.

As is customary in such cases, the high court announced no reason or rationale for its action. The court’s five Republican-appointed justices voted to grant the stay, while the four Democratic-appointed justices voted to deny it.

The most reliable politics newsletter.

Sign up for POLITICO Playbook and get the latest news, every morning — in your inbox.

Email

By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.

The three-judge panel ruled 2-1 in August that the drawing of two Texas congressional districts, the 27th and 35th, violated both the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act. The panel issued a similar ruling on maps for the Texas state House of Representatives.

Justice Samuel Alito temporarily stayed both rulings last month at the request of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton while the high court considered what to do next in the cases.

Paxton applauded Tuesday’s ruling.

“The Supreme Court confirmed what the rest of us already knew: Texas should be able to use maps in 2018 that the district court itself adopted in 2012 and Texas used in the last three election cycles,” Paxton said in a statement. “In 2012 the Supreme Court ordered the district court to adopt lawful maps, and we believe it did so. We are eager to proceed with this case in the high court.”